NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 22-1036 _______________ MAURICIO LLANES-QUINTEROS, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A209-343-065) Immigration Judge: David Cheng _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on November 17, 2022 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Filed: December 15, 2022 ) _______________ OPINION* _______________ BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Mauricio Llanes-Quinteros, a Salvadoran native, challenges his order of removal. The decisions below were flawed. But because those flaws were harmless, we will deny his petition for review. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. In El Salvador, Quinteros was threatened and beaten by gangsters. They mocked his Christian beliefs and demanded that he join their gang. He was also beaten by four police- men for refusing to join the gang. So in 2016, he fled to the United States. When he arrived, he was charged as inadmissible and put into removal proceedings. He conceded that he was removable but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Conven- tion Against Torture. An immigration judge denied his requests and ordered him removed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed. He now petitions for review. “When the Board relies on an IJ’s legal conclusions and findings of fact, we review [both] the IJ’s decision and the Board’s decision.” Gonzalez-Posadas v. Att’y Gen., 781 F.3d 677, 684 n.5 (3d Cir. 2015). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo. Yasin v. Att’y Gen., 20 F.4th 818, 822 (3d Cir. 2021). In seeking asylum and withholding of removal, Quinteros claimed that he was perse- cuted as a member of a “particular social group”: “young El Salvadorian men whose reli- gious activities have exposed them to harm.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); AR 116 (capital- ization removed). On these claims, the immigration judge made both a factual finding and a legal holding. Factually, he found that the evidence did not link Quinteros’s religion to his persecution: Salvadoran gangsters target all youths, and they did not focus on him be- cause of his faith. Legally, the judge held that the proposed group does not count under the statute. The Board assumed that Quinteros’s proposed social group was cognizable but still dismissed his appeal, agreeing that he had not been targeted because of his religion. Quinteros denies that the immigration judge made that factual finding about the causal nexus. But he is mistaken. The judge denied asylum “[b]ecause [his] proposed particular 2 social group is not cognizable and … any harm he may have suffered was not on account of any protected ground.” AR 75 (emphasis added). Substantial evidence supports this factual finding on nexus. Quinteros himself testified that gang members harass all youths in his community. And though they mocked his churchgoing as a waste of time, a reasonable judge could find that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals